Atheism, Evolution, Skepticism

Proof that Mutations can Create Information

A lot of creationists believe that mutations can’t “create information”, they can only destroy it. They like to imagine making random changes to a book – it always ends up making random gibberish – thus, random mutations must do the same thing to the genome, right? Wrong. This misconception is so widespread, I thought I’d go ahead and prove that random mutations can create information.

First, I should say that creationists use a rather subjective definition of information. They aren’t talking about Shannon information or anything like that. Instead, “genetic information” is synonymous with “useful genetic sequences”. It’s not something that can be measured, and it’s highly contextual (a useful sequence in one creature might be completely useless in another creature). Despite the subjectiveness of the definition, we can all agree that genes do something useful in the body, that the genome contains a high concentration of useful genetic sequences (in comparison to say, a randomly generated DNA sequence).

So, let’s use the creationist’s definition of genetic information. Let’s say that we have a small sequence of DNA consisting of 90 nucleotides. We’ll call this Sequence A.

Let’s also say that we have another DNA sequence which is identical to Sequence A except that it is different in just one codon. We’ll call this Sequence B. There are three possibilities for the Sequence B: it does something better, equally well, or worse (perhaps not at all) than the Sequence A. (In creationist language, it contains more information, the same information, or less information than Sequence A.)

Now, if a point mutation happens to occur to Sequence A or Sequence B, it will alter it at one codon. Given the number of nucleotides (90) and the fact that there are three possible other codons at each location, the odds of a point-mutation turning Sequence A will turn it into Sequence B is 1 in 270. Similarly, the odds that a point-mutation will turn Sequence B into Sequence A is 1 in 270. So, both sequences can be converted into each other. But, we said earlier, that we don’t know if Sequence B is more useful, equally useful, or less useful to the creature than Sequence A. If Sequence B is more useful than Sequence A, then the mutation changing Sequence A into Sequence B (1 in 270 odds) is an increase in information. If Sequence B is less useful than Sequence A, then the mutation changing Sequence B into Sequence A (1 in 270 odds) is an increase in information. Thus, if A > B or A < B, we can prove that information can increase.

Once the mutation exists, natural selection either drives it into extinction – if harmful, or causes it to proliferate in the species – if useful.

Counterargument 1: A creationist once counterargued that, since the sequences can be inter-converted, that both sequences must have the same amount of information. Because I haven’t even told you what the actual sequences are, then his “equal information” argument must be true for all possible sequences A and B. In order for his argument to work, this means all possible 90 nucleotide sequences must have the exact same amount of information. (This is because it’s possible to convert any sequence X into any other sequence Y via a finite number of single-codon changes. If each single-codon change results in 0 information change, then all sequences X and Y have equal information, no matter how different they are.) Since there is nothing special about 90 nucleotides – he has to argue the absurd position that all possible sequences of N nucleotides contain the same amount of information. And since insertion and deletion mutations can alter the number of nucleotides, then (by his logic) all DNA sequences containing any number of nucleotides must contain the same amount of information.

Counterargument 2: “But evolution can’t explain complex systems”. I typically interpret this response as “I don’t want to admit you’re right. So, I’ll bring up a related – but different – topic.” This example does show an increase in information, and there’s not much sense in moving-on to other topics if creationists aren’t willing to admit it when it’s made obvious. Besides, if they can’t admit that mutations can produce “new information” when it’s made plain, then talking about other topics are unlikely to be fruitful.

Counterargument 3: “The second law of thermodynamics prevents an increase of information.” First of all, creationists are misapplying the second law of thermodynamics to make it say something that it doesn’t say. Second, what if it were really true that mutations can’t accidentally produce an increase in information? In order for mutations to never create information, you have to accept a whole bunch of absurd conclusions. First of all, the random mutation would have to understand how that gene functions in order to avoid causing an accidental improvement. They have to argue that a mutation can turn a fully functional gene into a weaker version, but once that weaker version exists, mutations will explicitly avoid any change that would convert it back to it’s original form (in spite of the mathematics). Additionally, it would have to understand how that gene works within each specific creature. Because the sequences are context specific (i.e. depending on the creature’s biology), then it’s possible that Sequence A will function better in Creature A, but Sequence B functions better in Creature B. Do mutations “know” to allow and avoid the specific mutations based on creature type? In Creature A, a mutation can turn Sequence A into Sequence B, but never the Sequence B into Sequence A? And vice-versa in Creature B? Of course not. The sequences and mutations are completely blind about what effects the mutations have, and that means that they can accidentally increase the information.

Second, if Sequence A contained more information than Sequence B, then we could take a million copies of Sequence B, expose them to mutagens until each of them had a single point-mutation, then look at those million mutated copies, and (against all laws of probability) none of them would have been turned into Sequence A. If true, it would allow scientists to accurately produce a hierarchy of genetic sequences sorted from “contains more information” to “contains less information”, defying all logic about how the universe works. If true, it would allow scientists to perform all kinds of miracles – because the mutation would explicitly avoid any increase in information – biological or otherwise. You could learn secret information by looking at what sequences it seems to avoid. Take a billion copies of the human hemoglobin gene, and expose it to a mutagen. Any sequences which never appear in the results would be stronger versions of the hemoglobin gene. Of course, the universe doesn’t work that way.

Counterargument 4: “Your example shows an increase in information in one case out of 270. What about the other 269 cases? If some of them are negative, then the average result is a decrease in information.” That’s true. The average case probably is a decrease in information. But, that’s where natural selection steps in. Natural selection drives the negative mutations out of the gene pool (because the creatures that have the negative mutation are less likely to survive or reproduce than the rest of the population). Natural selection also promotes the spread of positive mutations throughout the gene pool. This gives the (rare) positive mutations a huge boost over the (more common) negative mutations.

Counterargument 5: If mutations can be positive, then why do our bodies have mechanisms to prevent and reverse mutations? Mutations are a mixed-bag. Some are positive, some are neutral, and some are negative. There a probably a lot more negative mutations than positive ones. This means it’s critical to keep the number of mutations low – so that positive and negative mutations can be sorted by natural selection. Here’s an example: let’s say that you are playing a game. You pickup a random card from a deck, and whenever you get an Ace, you win. Whenever you pickup an 6 or less, you automatically lose. All other cards are a draw. Clearly, the game is stacked against you – 1 out of every 13 cards is a winner, but 5 out every 13 cards is a loser. Except there is one additional rule: you can bet between $1 and $10 on each round, and you get to decide how much to bet after you see your card. Of course, whenever you pull an Ace (1 in 13 odds), you bet $10. Whenever you pickup a 6 or less (5 in 13 odds), you bet $1. (This resembles the way natural selection magnifies the value of positive mutations, and minimizes the damage of negative mutations to the gene pool.) The result is that the game is now in your favor. Now, imagine if the rules were changed slightly: instead of picking up one card, you have to pickup two cards at a the same time (i.e. an increase in the number of mutations). In a few cases, you’ll pickup two Aces or an Ace + 7 or higher, and you win $10. But, in other cases, you’ll pickup an Ace and a 6 or less (resulting in a loss). In this example, the result of this change is that players win 15% more frequently, but get a losing hand 60% more frequently – because the losing cards are more likely to show up. If we pickup three or four cards at the same time, it gets even worse. When we calculate the average winnings per hand:

The same thing with mutations: high rates of mutation means more positive mutations, but it also means more negative mutations. If you happen to get a positive mutation and negative mutation at the same time, then the creature might be dead – preventing the spread of that one positive mutation. In the end, the best solution is to keep the number of mutations low – and that makes anti-mutation mechanisms useful.

Saying “creatures have mechanisms to prevent mutations – therefore mutations must always be bad” is a little bit like saying “animals have mechanisms to prevent swallowing too much food at one time – therefore food must be bad”.

“Let’s say that we have a small sequence of DNA consisting of 90 nucleotides.”

OK. Where did your “small sequence of DNA” come from? How did it come into existence?

If it contains information useful to ANY organism at ANY time in history, then it is non-random, non-Shannon, specified. So, it’s complex, specified, information, 90 bases long, but yet this is how you begin your “demonstration”.

Hmm. This is much like starting with a Chicken to prove Eggs exist.

The fact is, neoDarwinian evolution can’t even explain how two bases come together, much less 90.

You equate an increase in information with an increase in usefulness. That’s quite arbitrary considering you don’t clearly define information or usefulness. Shannon information has to do with information carrying capacity, information transmission, ect. Genetic information is a code, a set of symbolically communicated instructions based upon the rules of gene expression. These codes convey meaning for a purpose, to create new creatures through development, from compact reproducible copies. Sure, there are different chemical combinations that can achieve the same protein structures. But that is only a small slice of what is going on in gene expression. You are down at the bottom level, imagining that random noise (mutation) is going to somehow improve the signal, while ignoring all the levels of information above, how they operate, and how they are affected or how they are able to affect these mutations. Oversimplification leads to misunderstanding. And what is so funny to me is how pervasive this misunderstanding is amongst popular culture. I seriously doubt that real scientists who are aware of all the elaborate mechanisms within genetic systems architectures are impressed with your faith in random mutation. Only the ignorant, in particular those who feel that the undirected nature of mutations eliminates design, and the ones who really don’t have anything to say about it, ironically, are pushing this pseudo-science.

Saying “creatures have mechanisms to prevent mutations – therefore mutations must always be bad” is a little bit like saying “animals have mechanisms to prevent swallowing too much food at one time – therefore food must be bad”.

You left out that swallowing too much food at one time is always bad. If our body has mechanisms to prevent something, one would assume it is bad. Food isn’t bad, so our body doesn’t have mechanisms to prevent us from eating all together. But we do have mechanisms preventing eating too much and mutations. So eating to much and mutations must be bad. Right?

Just study genetic diseases in humans. Near neutral mutations (the ones too insignificant for natural selection to select against) that accumulate faster than error correction mechanisms can deal with appropriately lead to degradation. Sure, some mutations may be harmless, and in certain environments actually provide a slight advantage. But adaptation on a much grander level is being shown to come from non-random genetic mechanisms orchestrated by cells which regulate their internal environments based upon external stimuli. In other words, the old mantra of random mutation and selection (beyond where it has been verified by observation that there was a copying error or environmental damage) is really an ignorant place holder for genetic changes not yet understood.

‘Positive’ mutations can exist, but they are specific to an environment, not all around beneficial to an organism. For example, bacteria can mutate (resulting in a loss of information) to the point where they are resistant to anti-biotics. The anti-biotics work by reacting to a part of the bacteria and becoming harmful to said bacteria as a result of that reaction. So if the bacteria mutates and loses the part that the anti-biotics reacts to, then the anti-biotics won’t harm it.

However, when the anti-biotics are removed this mutated bacteria has a much lower chance of survival because of the part of it that was removed by the mutation. It must compete with the bacteria that aren’t resistant to anti-biotics, but still have the part that the mutated bacteria do not have.

This part increases their fitness outside of an environment with the anti-biotics, and decreases it inside of an environment with anti-biotics. The mutated bacteria have lost the information necessary for building this part, they cannot gain it back.

Positive mutations are determined by the environment (and are very rare), but it is mutations that increase information that are not being observed. It is these mutations (that increase information) that are necessary for evolution to occur, not merely mutations that result in a mutation that is positive due to environment.

In we evolved with the help of mutations then demonstrate how mutations create brand new sequences and ultimately into brand new genes. I don’t care if you can change existing DNA sequences that could result in a positive mutation that never explains whole new sequences or real new code being added. Modifying existing sequences does not explain how we evolved with common ancestors that had less sequences in there DNA. We needed to mutate a whole lot of extra sequences with positive results. Seems fantasyland to me if you believe mutations and all the time in the world you want to explain it away.

And don’t try to answer this problem away with duplication mutations. For that to work you don’t only need the rare duplication mutation to happen but you will need the even more rare event of a second mutation to happen on top of one of the two duplicate mutations then have it not result in a harmful way and have that scenario repeat many endless times over in a way that combined leads to lead eventually something significant like an elaborate functioning wing. Its pure fantasy of imagination. Go learn how to write real software code that creates a complicated application and then come back and see if your eyes are opened up to this fantasy of coming from random positive chance.

Life is like a computer code (an organism) that lives inside of a larger code (environment) along with other codes ( the biosphere). Any sort of climatization, adaptation, or mutation should be viewed as the execution of a program, not necessarily the corruption or happenstance alteration of arbitrary “information”. The evidence doesn’t support code generation from scratch through trial and error. It supports complete code that either degenerates gradually, or adapts significantly enough to be effective. The modern Darwinian viewpoint is a pipe dream.

How does Natural Selection “prefers” an organism over another..
Example:
One organism is perfectly fine for its environment..
* a good mutation occurs
Now how would the other organisms know that this organism got a “good” mutation? (I mean, some organism must be willing to ‘chose’ the ‘better’ organisms over the ‘normal’ one)
The question may sound a bit stupid, but the thing is, Even if good mutations occurs (mostly the mutations are harmful/neutral depending on the environment)
then what causes the other organism to reproduce with a ‘fitter’ organism? The organism doesn’t know that this specific organism is ‘better’ (please note: other organisms don’t just ‘die of’ because a fitter organism is present)
I mean, this new good mutation may just get lost the way bad mutations are lost.. nothing favors it.. besides the fact that somehow mutations may make the organism ‘survive’ in an environment where others cant survive.. which just maybe a good side effect to the organism
Another thing..
How on Earth did first organisms cycle the ‘waste’.
I mean, we have producers, decomposers, consumers.. which keep everything balanced… It would take a lot of organisms to come up with all different types of organisms.. but before tht would have happened, wouldn’t the Earth be full of wastes?

Question: Why are you equating a positive outcome of a mutation (ie: making an organism more ‘fit’ in a certain environment) to an increase in information from a mutation? Aren’t they different things?

“it does something better, equally well, or worse (perhaps not at all) than the Sequence A. (In creationist language, it contains more information, the same information, or less information than Sequence A.)”

I used to believe in this stupidity,but lie,after,lie,after,lie are exposed. Evolution is far more dogmatic than any Christian. You still give no example. A living creature producing new genetic information through mutation.It would defy the 2nd law of thermodynamics ,it would deny common sense,it would literally be going on all the time. How many 100,00 into the millions of generations of flies do they have to go through…flies give you flies,dogs breed dogs…different species of dogs…is still a fucking dog.